DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1, Fig. 6, legend for Fig. 10, Fig. 11, and upper portion of Fig. 12-16 are of too low resolution to be reasonably interpreted. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 introduces “a width of the glass ribbon” with the first portion; the “second portion of a width of the glass ribbon” should be “a second portion of the width of the glass ribbon”. Similarly, claim 8 has this issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a first device that cools”. The Examiner is giving broadest reasonable interpretation regarding the individual or collective parts regarding the “device” as well as its relative “cool[ing]” functional capability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the air”. Parent claim 1 and 3 are silent regarding the “air” element. It is implied that the first device has an “air” component but is currently silent with regards thereof. Please correct the antecedent basis of the origin of “the air”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christopher et al (WO-2018119272-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Christopher teaches a glass ribbon processing apparatus to produce a glass ribbon with variable thickness [0039], the apparatus comprising a first device (Fig. 2) that cools a first portion of a width of the glass ribbon [0055] (including at least one of the bead regions) which cools the first portion of a width of the glass ribbon which is thicker than the second portion of the width of the glass ribbon (Fig. 2).
Regarding the limitation of cooling the first portion at a different rate than the second portion, manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II). A structural limitation is required to differentiate from the prior art. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the cooling rate is affected by the structural components of the apparatus [0024-26] and the thickness of the portions is relevant [0003].
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Christopher teaches the first device is located above/below/approximate to the glass ribbon (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, Christopher teaches the first device is a heat exchanger that extracts heat from the first portion [0059].
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 1, Christopher teaches that the first device includes a heater [0040, 51].
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 1, Christopher teaches that the heaters of their apparatus are individually/independently controllable [0040, 42]. Under broadest reasonable interpretation from the logic between claim 1 and claim 8, the heater is a second device.
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 8, Christopher teaches the second device heats an interface of the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 7B/8B).
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 1, Christopher teaches the first device is a plurality of first devices that are configured to be positionally adjusted within the apparatus [0048].
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 1, Christopher teaches a sectional heater that includes at least two heating zones to provide heat treatment to the glass ribbon [0040].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher et al (WO-2018119272-A1) as applied to claim 1/3 above, and further in view of Aniolek et al (US-20160297703-A1).
Regarding claim 4-5, depending from claim 1, Christopher teaches an embodiment wherein the first device is configured to extract heat by an evaporative cooling effect [0049]. Christopher does not expressly teach the first device forces air onto the portion. In related thermal conditioning of glass ribbon art, Aniolek teaches for a thicker width portion of the glass ribbon to be cooled using a device comprising forced air onto the portion [0071]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Christopher by incorporating a known device that forces air on the first portion as means to control the cooling rate of the portion.
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 3, Christopher teaches the first device is a heat exchanger that extracts heat from the first portion [0059]. Christopher does not expressly teach the first device includes a valve to adjust air forced onto the first portion. In related thermal conditioning of glass ribbon art, Aniolek teaches for a thicker width portion of the glass ribbon to be cooled using a device comprising forced air onto the portion [0071] that has regulating control valves [0055]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Christopher by incorporating a known device that forces air with adjustable valves on the first portion as means to control the cooling rate of the portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170314321-A1 teaches a device for discrete localized cooling for different portions of a glass sheet
US-8141388-B2 teaches width portion cooling of a glass ribbon
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights